Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent (::sigh::)

Thank you but no, what was posted was sufficient, I was merely curious. Ian ... _____________________________________________________________________

Message 1 of 28
, Feb 1, 2008

0 Attachment

Thank you but no, what was posted was sufficient, I was merely
curious.

Ian

--- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
>
> You will note, that I've indicated that they are 'no
> longer publicly accessible'. The screen shot captured
> into PDF indicates that at the time they were viewed,
> the archives were indeed public, indicating that I was
> the reader logged into Yahoo, and that only some
> portions of that list were restricted to members only,
> the messages not been designated so.
>
> I will be happy to provide document that if you wish.
>
> -- Grimkirk
>
> --- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
>
> > I've been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a
> > few times since it was mentioned. I see no
> > publicly available archives. Please let me know
> > how you are accessing them.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams
> > <auldefarte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9
> > of
> > > 44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at]
> > yahoogroups
> > > [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
> > > Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups
> > website
> > > available upon request.
> > > <---- Begin Quote ---->
> > >
> <snipped for brevity>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

John Adams

Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your response

Message 2 of 28
, Feb 1, 2008

0 Attachment

Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I
appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands
can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your
response is, I think many would have to admit that
there are too many detailed circumstances present for
anyone to believe that you really can't see the point
being made here.

Having received a response of any kind, one could
hardly interpret that as being ignored, in any way. I
think some, maybe many, would agree that inaction or
deferment, or even plain silence, would more
accurately represent having been ignored. Yet, the
response to the original request was none of those
things.

Let us suppose for a moment what things might give
someone pause:

A voluntary inquiry to the Kingdom when none really
seemed needed to honor the request (your committee is
the author and controlling agent of the document(s),
and acts of its own accord);

Followed by perhaps what might be construed by some as
a resounding 'no', authorized by someone on the
committee, since Etienne is not one of the Seneschals;

Then followed by three days of what, under some
conditions could be construed as no follow up (yet you
managed to take time to discuss the subject on the
list). Even if your stragglers weren't reached
immediately, surely a quick and dirty 'yes or no'
could have been completed in the ensuing time frame.

Further add the coincidence of a request from someone
who was not an open opponent being honored within the
span of an hour.

All this, wrapped up with a claim that there wasn't
time to post the text of a document that's been in
electronic format since November and anticipated to be
in the wild effective 1/1/08 at that time.

The response from Etienne as crafted, seemed to make
clear that the decision of the committee (in its
entirety) was simply unfavorable. There was really
nothing to indicate that any follow up or revision of
the response was pending, or to be expected. Even if
complete unanimity were somehow manditory, a response
could have been delayed briefly, or a more clear
response provided (on the order of "Gee, we'd like to
accomodate you but we require a unanimous decision and
we can't reach everyone just yet. We'll get back to
you in X timeframe"). But that wasn't the case.

In the end, this isn't about me, but the apparent
distinction between those who support the transition
to Barony and those who don't or can't and how they're
being viewed, considered and dealt with by the
'committee'. Perhaps no response would have been
better than what ultimately appears, on more than just
the surface, to be a disingenuous one.

> A unanimous decision was not met because not all
> seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world
> again getting in the way of our fun. :)
>
> Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like
> you were being ignored on purpose. We value all the
> opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and
> encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and
> open discussion on the subject.
>
> Henry

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Scribesquire@comcast.net

We have apologized, we have exlained what happened, and we will strive to not make the same mistakes in the future. There were no devious, evil intentions

Message 3 of 28
, Feb 1, 2008

0 Attachment

We have apologized, we have exlained what happened, and we will strive to not make the same mistakes in the future. There were no devious, evil intentions behind it. I hope that resolves the issue for everyone and we can move on.

This entire process is new and there will be obvious pitfalls along the way. None of us are perfect which is why we conntinue to ask for everyone's input. Again we urge you to go to Stone Dog Inn and join us in the ongoing discussions. The seneschals will be working on coming up with a meeting agenda and will post it here prior to the event.

Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and Iappreciate your candor. And yes, real world demandscan be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as yourresponse is, I think many would have to admit thatthere are too many detailed circumstances present foranyone to believe that you really can't see the pointbeing made here.

Having received a response of any kind, one couldhardly interpret that as being ignored, in any way. Ithink some, maybe many, would agree that inaction ordeferment, or even plain silence, would moreaccurately represent having been ignored. Yet, theresponse to the original request was none of thosethings.

Let us suppose for a moment what things might givesomeone pause:

A voluntary inquiry to the Kingdom when none reallyseemed needed to honor the request (your committee isthe author and controlling agent of the document(s),and acts of its own accord);

Followed by perhaps what
might be construed by some asa resounding 'no', authorized by someone on thecommittee, since Etienne is not one of the Seneschals;

Then followed by three days of what, under someconditions could be construed as no follow up (yet youmanaged to take time to discuss the subject on thelist). Even if your stragglers weren't reachedimmediately, surely a quick and dirty 'yes or no'could have been completed in the ensuing time frame.

Further add the coincidence of a request from someonewho was not an open opponent being honored within thespan of an hour.

All this, wrapped up with a claim that there wasn'ttime to post the text of a document that's been inelectronic format since November and anticipated to bein the wild effective 1/1/08 at that time.

The response from Etienne as crafted, seemed to makeclear that the decision of the committee (in itsentirety) was simply unfavorable. There was reallynothin
g to indicate that any follow up or revision ofthe response was pending, or to be expected. Even ifcomplete unanimity were somehow manditory, a responsecould have been delayed briefly, or a more clearresponse provided (on the order of "Gee, we'd like toaccomodate you but we require a unanimous decision andwe can't reach everyone just yet. We'll get back toyou in X timeframe"). But that wasn't the case.

In the end, this isn't about me, but the apparentdistinction between those who support the transitionto Barony and those who don't or can't and how they'rebeing viewed, considered and dealt with by the'committee'. Perhaps no response would have beenbetter than what ultimately appears, on more than justthe surface, to be a disingenuous one.

Regretfully,

-- Grimkirk

--- Scribesquire@ comcast.net wrote:> A unanimous decision was not met because not a
ll> seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world> again getting in the way of our fun. :)> > Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like> you were being ignored on purpose. We value all the> opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and > encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and> open discussion on the subject.> > Henry

Ian said I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has left the fold nor do I think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on their own in

Message 4 of 28
, Feb 1, 2008

0 Attachment

Ian said>>

I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
into forming a shell barony together.

***

The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

Teleri

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Christian Fournier

... My recollection of those early meetings, before the straw polls began, includes a general response that the possibility of one or more groups opting out

Message 5 of 28
, Feb 1, 2008

0 Attachment

> This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial
> meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a
> possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it
> later if that slight possibility became a reality.
>
> Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going
> to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

My recollection of those early meetings, before the straw polls
began, includes a general response that the possibility of one or
more groups opting out was a real possibility, but that it would not
necessarily mean that the remaining groups couldn't or oughtn't
proceed. In fact, the one thing that I recall being seen as a "deal-
breaker" would be if TGS wasn't in, because TGS shares borders will
all of the local Shires, and so can form a contiguous land-mass with
any subset thereof, whereas the "donut barony" wasn't as appealing...
(It's very possible that I was at different meetings than you were,
though-- I was mostly attending meetings at Grey Gargoyles, at that
point).

At the TGS business meeting, where the "straw poll" happened, I
recall an unconfirmed report being given, that "Ravenslake is likely
to pursue a Barony on their own," shortly BEFORE the straw poll took
place-- so, if I remember that one meeting correctly, then the TGS
membership voted to proceed, in full knowledge of Ravenslake not
being party to the shell.

So, from my perspective, there's nothing to "sweep under the rug"--
it's just a thing that doesn't seem particularly relevant, to me.
Knowing now that it's relevant to YOU, however, makes it more
relevant to me, too-- since I'm primarily concerned that everyone has
an opportunity to feel that their concerns have been heard, and are
satisfied that those concerns are addressed.

> There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the
> shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates,
> a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer
> be the case.

I don't think that I agree. Being five instead of six is, I think,
no impediment to unity among those five.

> The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections
> between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

On the contrary, Ravenslake has chosen not to join the other groups;
they'll by no means be excluded, but have chosen not to share those
formal connections. I'm not sure I understand why you think that
five groups cannot unite, without the sixth, nor why you see
exclusion in any of this-- can you elaborate, or enlighten me to your
viewpoint?

>
> ...You cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups
> when such structural boundaries are put in place.

For my part, I certainly don't deny that a Barony with Ravenslake as
a member will be considerably different than a Barony with Ravenslake
as a neighbor. I think that either situation is viable.

> When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards,
> baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which
> were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and
> individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will
> not.

And it's right and fitting that each group (and each individual, by
way of his or her voice within that group) has the choice to
participate, or not. Ravenslake has *chosen* not to be part of the
shell Barony. By all accounts I've heard, they've so chosen, in
order to pursue their own Baronial advancement-- but whether that
rumor is true or not is beside the point: they got to choose, and
that's the important thing.

> I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
> structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.
>

Sorry if you've felt like your concerns were brushed aside-- as I
said above, I personally hadn't addressed them, because I didn't
realize that you had such a different perspective on what "we" knew
going into this process than you did, so I was much less surprised by
Ravenslake's choice than you were...

By all means, now that everyone knows that Ravenslake isn't part of
the advancement proposal, let's talk about HOW that changes what we
might become, so that everyone can follow their own conscience in
terms of what's being done, and why, and how.

Christian

marie_la_f

BIG FURRY GLOWING SAFETY-ORANGE DISCLAIMER: I am speaking here solely for myself, a person who plays in Ravenslake, and not as an officer or representative of

Message 6 of 28
, Feb 1, 2008

0 Attachment

BIG FURRY GLOWING SAFETY-ORANGE DISCLAIMER: I am speaking here solely
for myself, a person who plays in Ravenslake, and not as an officer
or representative of The Shire of Ravenslake.

> <snip> It will have a major affect on the regional structure of
this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members. <

Mrrr, no. (Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your use of the
term, which is entirely possible!) The "region" is a purely
administrative device to facilitate report collection. Whether a
group is an independent Shire, an independent Barony, or a part of a
collective such as a shell barony, does not affect the regional
structure.

Ravenslake isn't packing its bags and moving to Constellation or
Northshield or Lochac. It's staying right here in the Midlands where
it belongs.

> <snip> I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in
the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the
initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional
disadvantages. <

What are the disadvantages of 5 instead of 6? I ask this sincerely, I
would like to know what problems you're seeing. Would you kindly
elaborate?

> <snip> The new proposed structure will institutionalize the
connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups. <

That would indeed be the case if a group were being excluded against
their will. As commented in a previous post, the Ravenslake poll was
0 in favor and 19 against joining the shell barony. That sounds like
a choice from within, not an exclusion by the rest.

> Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a
certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield,
now that it has become it's own kingdom. <

Indeedy. I don't think you'll see fewer Ravenslakers at Ayreton
events, nor will Ayreton folk be "un-invited" to Ravenslake doings,
regardless of the size or name or structure of our groups. We'd miss
out on too much fun!

> However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between
groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it
comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial
championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were
proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and
individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will
not. <

Absolutely true. That's part of the choices you make when you decide
whether to participate in a barony.

> I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside. <

I'm sorry you feel these concerns are (or were) being brushed aside.
I've felt that the entire process has been quite open so far. But I
also appreciate your bringing up your questions--I hope we can come
to a friendly understanding and resolution on all of them.

Marie la Fauconniere
just some Lady who plays in Ravenslake

AlexdeSet@aol.com

Greetings! ???? Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony,

Message 7 of 28
, Feb 2, 2008

0 Attachment

Greetings!

Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.

In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.

While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.

I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
into forming a shell barony together.

***

The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

Even though I no longer live in the area I must say I for one look forward with excitement to the prospect of the Ayreton Barony and I really look forward with

Message 8 of 28
, Feb 3, 2008

0 Attachment

Even though I no longer live in the area I must say I for one look
forward with excitement to the prospect of the Ayreton Barony and I
really look forward with hope that Ravenslake will become one as well.
Having spoken to a number of folk from Ravenslake before I left the
area about the barony issue I'd know of their decision to go a
different path 7 months ago and some of the reason's sited to me at
the time was in part the distance Ravenslake was from everyone else.
Some of the other reasons was a desire to form their own barony. This
led to the discussion of what if there was TWO baronies in the
area.....Ahh the schitck to be had with border skirmish between the
groups and friendly rivaleries. It opens up room for even greater
banter and lets face it it's not like they wont still help out with
events and the like. Imagine events potentially being hosted by two
baronies. Quite Impressive really and opens the door for many fun
interactions between the groups while still giving Chicago it's more
cohesive feel.

I look forward to the day when I may attend event in the barony of
Ayreton.

Moira O'Dorran
Formerly of Ayreton.

--- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, AlexdeSet@... wrote:
>
>
> Greetings!
>
> ???? Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when
the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a
Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we
decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
>
> ???? In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are
baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a
bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will
also be a good thing.
>
> ???? While I think it is good that others are concerned that
Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still
here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a
slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and
Barony, or Barony and Barony.
>
> Is mise le meas,
>
> Alexander de Seton,
>
> Some Guy From Ravenslake
>
>

Teleri

The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue. My concern is the affect

Message 9 of 28
, Feb 3, 2008

0 Attachment

The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue. My concern is the affect that has on the logic of forming a shell barony out of the remaining five groups in the local area.

Maybe my perspective is different because I have been happily thinking of myself as a citizen of Ayreton (meaning all 6 groups in the greater Chicago area) for the last several years. With the efforts spent by so many people to promote the unity between groups, it has been wonderful to be able to participate in the activities and events of all groups, without worrying about what geographic location it is in, or which group it "belongs" to.

I was not especially in favor of the Ayreton entity of all six groups advancing to barony status, but I at least understood the logic of the folks proposing it. It would have maintained the unity of the area that we had all been working toward. The newly proposed shell consisting of only part of the greater Chicago area groups has no such obvious logic to it.

During the initial advancement discussions, many argued against individual groups advancing in status because of the barriers to unity that such structures could impose. The newly proposed area-wide organization will have to deal with these issues of division. I am now looking at the prospect of ending up quite close to the boundary of the Barony of Five and the Whatever of Ravenslake, which is quite unappealing. While, of course, no wall will go up, and we won't stop talking to each other, my experience with the Midrealm is that people take Baronial boundaries much more seriously. During the polling process, I already had people question my right to express an opinion outside my geographic zip code. While the majority of people in the area did not support that type of exclusion, such attitudes only become stronger under a baronial organization structure.

Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer considered important? My experience with the advancement process is that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there is little to spare for other matters for a long time. If we want to maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony and Ravenslake? Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the purview of just the Shell Barony? Will we now need a new separate email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five groups without Ravenslake? How does it make sense to try and form this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion of the
entire set of six groups?

Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.

In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.

While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.

I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look into forming a shell barony together.

***

The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that
slight possibility became a reality.

Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships
between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

Thank you, Teleri, for clarifying your feelings. You raise some excellent questions, and I wouldn t want to belittle them by immediately countering them in

Message 10 of 28
, Feb 3, 2008

0 Attachment

Thank you, Teleri, for clarifying your feelings. You raise some excellent questions, and I wouldn't want to belittle them by immediately "countering" them in turn.

Rather, for my part, I'll plan to consider the questions you raise, and see what difference they make in my thoughts about the Baronial issue. I encourage others to do the same-- give some real thought to the questions below, and let's take them up as we continue discussions at the next Towne Hall. Some of these questions are interwoven tightly, with each other and with the already open questions of what happens to the Ayreton infrastructure we already have in place.

Thanks again, Teleri and all,

Christian

Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer considered important? My experience with the advancement process is that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there is little to spare for other matters for a long time. If we want to maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony and Ravenslake? Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the purview of just the Shell Barony? Will we now need a new separate email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five groups without Ravenslake? How does it make sense to try and form this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion of the entire set of six groups?

Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.

In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.

While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.

I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do Ithink their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony ontheir own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to lookinto forming a shell barony together.

***

The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

Having been at the Ravenslake meeting at which it was agreed that we would not join the Ayreton shell barony, I would just like to point out, in case it hasn t

Message 11 of 28
, Feb 4, 2008

0 Attachment

Having been at the Ravenslake meeting at which it was agreed that we
would not join the Ayreton shell barony, I would just like to point
out, in case it hasn't been made clear, that Ravenslake never intended
to make or imply any statement of opposition to the remaining Ayreton
groups forming a barony.

We have no wish to veto, prevent, impede, undermine or discourage the
advancement of the other five groups.

Sometimes, growth doesn't happen quite the way you might want or
expect. That's just life.

- Galen of Bristol
another guy in Ravenslake

--- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...> wrote:
>
> The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of
their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue. My
concern is the affect that has on the logic of forming a shell barony
out of the remaining five groups in the local area.
>
> Maybe my perspective is different because I have been happily
thinking of myself as a citizen of Ayreton (meaning all 6 groups in
the greater Chicago area) for the last several years. With the
efforts spent by so many people to promote the unity between groups,
it has been wonderful to be able to participate in the activities and
events of all groups, without worrying about what geographic location
it is in, or which group it "belongs" to.
>
> I was not especially in favor of the Ayreton entity of all six
groups advancing to barony status, but I at least understood the logic
of the folks proposing it. It would have maintained the unity of the
area that we had all been working toward. The newly proposed shell
consisting of only part of the greater Chicago area groups has no such
obvious logic to it.
>
> During the initial advancement discussions, many argued against
individual groups advancing in status because of the barriers to unity
that such structures could impose. The newly proposed area-wide
organization will have to deal with these issues of division. I am
now looking at the prospect of ending up quite close to the boundary
of the Barony of Five and the Whatever of Ravenslake, which is quite
unappealing. While, of course, no wall will go up, and we won't stop
talking to each other, my experience with the Midrealm is that people
take Baronial boundaries much more seriously. During the polling
process, I already had people question my right to express an opinion
outside my geographic zip code. While the majority of people in the
area did not support that type of exclusion, such attitudes only
become stronger under a baronial organization structure.
>
> Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to
maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer
considered important? My experience with the advancement process is
that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there
is little to spare for other matters for a long time. If we want to
maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead
of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony
and Ravenslake? Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival
event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the
purview of just the Shell Barony? Will we now need a new separate
email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five
groups without Ravenslake? How does it make sense to try and form
this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion
of the entire set of six groups?
>
> Yours in Service,
> Teleri
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "AlexdeSet@..." <AlexdeSet@...>
> To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:00:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent
>
> Greetings!
> Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when
the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a
Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we
decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
> In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are
baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a
bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will
also be a good thing.
> While I think it is good that others are concerned that
Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still
here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a
slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and
Barony, or Barony and Barony.
> Is mise le meas,
> Alexander de Seton,
> Some Guy From Ravenslake
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
> To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
> Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent
>
>
> Ian said>>
>
> I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
> think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
> their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
> into forming a shell barony together.
>
> ***
>
> The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for
the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now
changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining
independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect
on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a
major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact
all 6 local groups and their members.
>
> This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial
meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a
possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it
later if that slight possibility became a reality.
>
> Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going
to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?
>
> I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the
shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the
initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional
disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major
advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of
intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that
will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will
institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and
exclude other groups.
>
> Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a
certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield,
now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that
it changes the relationships between groups when such structural
boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial
events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing
lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell
barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to
participate and some will not.
>
> I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.
>
> Teleri
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo com/r/hs
>
>
>
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.